Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 6/24/2025.
Claims 2-13 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/3/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 2-13, under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claims 2, 11 and 13 as representative recite:
generating, by a first terminal of an entity, first transaction data for a block of a blockchain ledger based on a transaction conducted at the first terminal; storing, by the first terminal, the first transaction data in a local cache; transmitting, by the first terminal from the local cache, the first transaction data to a network device, wherein the network device stores a plurality of transaction data from the first terminal and other terminals of the entity in the blockchain ledger; receiving, by the first terminal from the network device, an indication of a detection result of a discrepancy between the first transaction data and a plurality of transaction data stored in the blockchain ledger; and responsive to receiving the indication of the detection result indicating a detection of the discrepancy, initiating, by the first terminal, an action comprising at least one of (i) providing a flag of the transaction, (ii) requesting a confirmation via the first terminal or the other terminals of the entity, or (iii) generating an alert, responsive to the detection result indicating no discrepancy or receiving the confirmation from the first terminal, synchronizing the first transaction data between the local cache and a remote memory of the network device, and linking, by the network device, the first transaction data with second transaction data associated with a second transaction conducted at a second terminal of the plurality of terminals of the entity, such that the blockchain ledger includes the first transaction data and second transaction data.
The claims as a whole recites collect transaction data, compare it against a stored dataset on a server, send an alert if mismatch and if match synchronize. These limitations recite the concepts directed to collecting and comparing data to detect discrepancies. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, such as managing transactions, detecting fraud, reconciling records, financial recordkeeping. Alternatively, the limitations also recite the abstract idea exception of “Mental processes”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example: the transaction reconciliation is conceptually identical to what humans have done in bookkeeping – compare a ledger entry against a master records, flag discrepancy, get confirmation, then record.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claims 2, 11 and 13 recite additional elements including network device, processors, memory, network interfaces, blockchain ledger, local cache and remote memory. Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 2, 11 and 13 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG) because the blockchain is used only as a data repository for storing transaction data and linked transaction records.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 3-10, 12 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-13 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 2, 11 and 13 taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
The additional elements are generic computer components performing their well-understood routing and conventional functions of receiving, sotring, transmitting, comparing and updating data. An ordered combination of conventional steps does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 2, 11 and 13 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”.
See MPEP 2106.05(d), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 3-10, 12 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-13 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible
Relevant prior art:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0264428 discloses a blockchain processor coupled with local terminal where auditing process verifies whether each block has the correct information about previous block, detecting tampering. It includes “state cache (Fig. 10). The patent does not explicitly teach bidirectional notification loop “Sending an indication back to the originating terminal initiating alert and conditional sync based on that confirmation.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0132626 discloses a transaction processing network where validation of electronic payment transaction may include confirmation of transaction values and provide results of the validation to the processing server. The reference does not disclose local cache architecture blockchain based ledger linking first and second terminal transactions.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0075453 discloses a system with two-way messaging of managing synchronization of positions and addresses discrepancies that both sides must work to remedy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights